rbt said:
I often think Yonge north of Steeles is more likely than Yonge south of Steeles.

Politically, if the province tendered Yonge from Steeles to Highway 7, then told the city money is available for Finch to Steeles anytime they want, the Toronto electorate would throw council out really fast if they tried to block construction of that chunk.
Click to expand...

Interestingly I'm half expecting something like this the longer YSE is delayed. Since the bulk of the project is in York Region, the yard is in York Region, and the greatest political/public demand is in York Region - I don't see why the Prov and York Region couldn't just say "F-Off Toronto, we're going it alone!"

The specs and EA would change though, it would no longer be a TTC project using TTC rolling stock, and the project would be designed as more of a light metro type of line (albeit with 'heavy rail' qualities). Its southern terminus could be Steeles, with the onus on Toronto/TTC to extend Line 1 from Finch to Steeles to meet this YRT/Metrolinx-owned subway and fill in the 2km gap. Or Toronto could decide to work alongside York Region/Metrolinx to extend this hypothetical light metro/subway further south to an intermodal Finch Station.

I've already prattled on about something similar in the appropriate threads (Fantasy, Yonge North). But I definitely see it being a realistic and optimal direction. 6-car ART/ ALRT can handle the loads for the next millennium, and if Bombardier's technology is chosen then the Feds would be more than happy to chip in for the bulk of it. And besides, these medium capacity metro systems are way more optimal in a suburban/semi-urban setting than $700M/km deep bore heavy rail. IMO it'd give York Region way more clout to have its own subway system, one they can extend whenever/wherever they want without having to rely on Toronto/TTC.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Ontario has the Alternative Financing and Procurement process. Basically, it is the DBM that you described from what I understand, but the key is that the contractor is responsible for any cost or schedule overruns, not the taxpayer. It is being used for the Crosstown now, was successfully used for the UP Express (operational pricing fiasco is aside and unrelated), and has been successfully used in other projects like hospitals. You're right in that Metrolinx would get involved if the Relief Line uses (and should use) the AFP, with support from Infrastructure Ontario.

In fact, it was the province that blasted the city for not using a similar process for the TYSSE, back when the overruns were first concretely tallied and calls for help went out.
Click to expand...

When I say full blown P3, I mean a concessionaire agreement, like the Canada Line, or a Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM). My colleagues act as the financial advisors for a lot of these P3s (multiple hospitals, the Edmonton Valley Line LRT, etc.). From projects I've worked on, my sense is that Metrolinx will basically stay away from projects that are extensions of existing systems or meant to share technology with them (other than their own GO Transit)...as they probably should.

Now some places get creative with their commercial strategies to attract private sector financing or investment....i.e. package the resignalling, rolling stock replacement and extension of Line 2, along with maintenance and operations of the whole line, into a single procurement.

Same could be done for a relief line if its own yard were included in the scope.

That's a policy decision on how we want to run our system, but also has a lot of union implications.

The permutations are almost endless as to how you can package these things to make them attractive investments. But it comes down to what the powers that be can stomach.
 
jcam said:
When I say full blown P3, I mean a concessionaire agreement, like the Canada Line, or a Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM). My colleagues act as the financial advisors for a lot of these P3s (multiple hospitals, the Edmonton Valley Line LRT, etc.). From projects I've worked on, my sense is that Metrolinx will basically stay away from projects that are extensions of existing systems or meant to share technology with them (other than their own GO Transit)...as they probably should.

Now some places get creative with their commercial strategies to attract private sector financing or investment....i.e. package the resignalling, rolling stock replacement and extension of Line 2, along with maintenance and operations of the whole line, into a single procurement.

Same could be done for a relief line if its own yard were included in the scope.

That's a policy decision on how we want to run our system, but also has a lot of union implications.

The permutations are almost endless as to how you can package these things to make them attractive investments. But it comes down to what the powers that be can stomach.
Click to expand...

I guess I was just focused on P3s where private money helps finance the capital costs, and/or private ownership stakes are handed out. The big defining principle with AFP is public financing and ownership, which I would argue is something a chunk of the Ontario electorate agrees with.

Beyond that, I'm not pretending to understand it as much as you haha.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
I guess I was just focused on P3s where private money helps finance the capital costs, and/or private ownership stakes are handed out. The big defining principle with AFP is public financing and ownership, which I would argue is something a chunk of the Ontario electorate agrees with.

Beyond that, I'm not pretending to understand it as much as you haha.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are examples opposite of this, but I think most P3s are not owned privately.

The ECLRT, for example - Crosslinx has a DBFM contract, but operation will be done by the TTC, while Metrolinx will own the structures, tunnels, and land. The maintenance period is 30 years, at which point, it's handed back to Metrolinx where they can take over, or put the next X years out to bid.

Point is, ownership still remains public.

And in this case, perhaps the most important for transit, operation remains public.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
I guess I was just focused on P3s where private money helps finance the capital costs, and/or private ownership stakes are handed out. The big defining principle with AFP is public financing and ownership, which I would argue is something a chunk of the Ontario electorate agrees with.

Beyond that, I'm not pretending to understand it as much as you haha.
Click to expand...

No, you've got a good handle on it. The only reason that they're called AFPs is because the Liberals originally campaigned against P3s...rebrand it and you're fine ;)

Alternative Delivery Models really cover a range. 'Non-alternative' is your traditional Design-Bid-Build at the one side, then you have everything from Design-Build and a number of other intermediate models over to DBFOM at the other.

The spectrum means you're transferring more risk to the private sector as you slide across. For all of them, ownership typically either stays with the public sector or it is transferred for a nominal amount only for the length of the agreement, typically on the order of 30 years like Zach6668 said, and then transferred back for a similar nominal amount.
 
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/east-harbour-redeveloped-port-lands.25568/

https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/...r-where-toronto-will-go-to-work-and-play.html

East Harbour which mirrors London's Canary Wharf, is set to start construction in 2018 with transit in mind as can be seen in those pictures that envision a DRL station

renderings4.jpg.size.custom.crop.710x650.jpg

eastharbour.jpg.size.custom.crop.851x650.jpg
 
rbt said:
I often think Yonge north of Steeles is more likely than Yonge south of Steeles.

Politically, if the province tendered Yonge from Steeles to Highway 7, then told the city money is available for Finch to Steeles anytime they want, the Toronto electorate would throw council out really fast if they tried to block construction of that chunk.
Click to expand...
You gotta be joking. I think its the oteh
rbt said:
I often think Yonge north of Steeles is more likely than Yonge south of Steeles.

Politically, if the province tendered Yonge from Steeles to Highway 7, then told the city money is available for Finch to Steeles anytime they want, the Toronto electorate would throw council out really fast if they tried to block construction of that chunk.
Click to expand...
You are out to lunch
 
While those artist renderings of a hypothetical East Harbour multi-modal station are very inspiring, I find it funny that so much energy is being spent servicing a part of the city that isn't built yet, while places like Liberty Village burst at the seams. Instead of putting all our eggs in this future basket, maybe we can add a smaller Union Station type of transit hub in the west, around Front and Bathurst, then eventually a similar, modest hub at the Unilever site once that community is underway. What's that Newfie expression, 'Dance with the one that brung ya'? I take that to mean, support the people who are already contributing and could use the help.
 
Euphoria said:
While those artist renderings of a hypothetical East Harbour multi-modal station are very inspiring, I find it funny that so much energy is being spent servicing a part of the city that isn't built yet, while places like Liberty Village burst at the seams. Instead of putting all our eggs in this future basket, maybe we can add a smaller Union Station type of transit hub in the west, around Front and Bathurst, then eventually a similar, modest hub at the Unilever site once that community is underway. What's that Newfie expression, 'Dance with the one that brung ya'? I take that to mean, support the people who are already contributing and could use the help.
Click to expand...

They are planning 10 million square feet of office space at East Harbour. Major transit better be in place to handle this massive density.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top